Scanner Tech Corp. (fka SCNI)

[rstar]

way better bid support

[rstar]

just 7000 at 02. now 021 x 03

[rstar]

volume 813,000 .02 x .03


Shares Outstanding5: 12.12M
Float: 6.68M
% Held by Insiders1: 44.93%

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SCNI.OB

[rstar]

wakey wakey....

[startingboy]

looks like it, from the last filing
The Issuer had 12,121,568 shares of Common Stock, no par value, outstanding as of October 31, 2008

Common stock, no par value, 50,000,000 shares authorized; 12,235,568 shares issued and outstanding

http://www.pinksheets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=6261020

[curber]

Picked some up under $03 is the outstanding still right?

[startingboy]

holy !!! .038 .10 is getting closer :)

[Click Click Boom]

BOOM .03 falling ;) good luck any and all -

[startingboy]

.025X.03 wowsa! this thing is on fire!

[Click Click Boom]

Like Yellowstone Super Volcano? :)

[swannny]

I might have to agree. The way it is trading today and how thin the ask is ... .10 is in reach

[BRS0903]

This stock looks set to explode. Possible .10-.15 this week.

[startingboy]

In July 2000, the Company instituted a lawsuit against ICOS for infringement of two of its patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,064,756 and 6,064,757). The patents disclose systems and methods of inspecting ball grid array devices in three dimensions. A trial was held in March 2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. ICOS later instituted actions against the Company in 2005 and 2007 asking the court to declare patents 6,064,756 and 6,064,757, and other related patents invalid and not infringed. On June 1, 2007, the New York court entered an order finding the Company’s 6,064,756 and


10


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents





6,064,757 patents not infringed by ICOS and its customers, and barring the Company from enforcing all of its patents related to inspecting ball grid array devices in three dimensions. The Company wrote off the net unamortized balance of the invalid patents in the second quarter of 2007. As a result of the ruling, the court dismissed the 2005 and 2007 ICOS actions and permitted ICOS to move for attorney’s fees and costs. On September 12, 2007, the Company filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding this case. On November 2, 2007, the New York District Court issued a supplemental judgment that ordered Scanner to pay ICOS $2,717,934 in attorney’s fees, $245,229 in costs, and $391,870 in expert fees, for a total award of fees and costs of $3,355,033. On January 3, 2008, the Court of Appeals ordered a stay of the supplemental judgment pending appeal. On June 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that reversed the New York Court’s judgment that the Company’s patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and vacated the award of attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed decisions of noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. patents 6,064,756 and 6,064,757 owned by the Company.

September 19, 2008, NVIDIA Corporation and ICOS filed declaratory judgment complaints against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints seek rulings that various patents owned by the Company are invalid and not infringed by BGA devices manufactured by NVIDIA and inspection equipment manufactured by ICOS. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and its intellectual property rights and expects to incur significant additional expenses to pursue its claims. No assessment of the likely outcome of the declaratory judgment complaints can be made at this time. If the Company’s patents are found invalid in this proceeding, its ability to license its technology will be substantially diminished or eliminated.


http://www.pinksheets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=6261020